Start thattay at the every Single Member of this house whatever view they hold on the fundamental physical question before us, is trying as they see best, to act in the National Interest and the interest of their constituents. The problem, the reason we are here today, is of course that each of us has a slightly different view of what those best interests are. So i hope that we can debate this bill in what is a, i recognize, a very short amount of time. If im a response to the point i can do no better than to quote the right honorable member for west dorsett who on the third of april in the house said, it could only be done at high speed. Because there is no time left. I think wherever we stand on this issue, we know there is very little time left. Following the decision on promulgation, there is even less time that would have been available previously. Therefore i hope that we will stronglyh other with held views with respect and consideration during this debate. The focus of the bill is very simple. It is to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on the 31st of october without an agreement. The bill has wide cross party support. Can i say it is a great pleasure to be just above on the order list, the honorable member for the northeast. And it is backed by memos who have very different views on how the matter of brexit should finally be resolved including members who until very recently were senior members of the cabinets. Now you could describe it as a somewhat unlikely alliance. But what unites us is a conviction that there is no mandate for no deal. And that the consequences for the economy and far country would be highly damaging. Bill supporting the believe that no deal is not in the National Interest. A question i think the right honorable delmon and forgiving wiper when he talks about no deal. Thered multiple sector deals. Does he not see the sector deals as being multiple deals in their own right . I do not aware these sector deals are. My concern and the reason for this bill and the support i hope it will enjoin the house today, is because the Prime Ministers made apsley clear that he is prepared to leave on the 31st of october without a deal. And those of us who i so hope will support the deal do not wish that to happen. I will give way. Sense you agree that in a with these debates going on for long. , lessons many of us from them, and in that process, people have changed their minds. Ther of importance for events of a no deal brexit, one of the amendments today is to get people another look at the, what we might call the main part. Proposal. That people turned around of the time but feel that had been on the auto [indiscernible] auto [indiscernible] if they had the experience they have now they might have voted differently. Mati asked that with all the rush that the necessary has been, has had the chance to look at the amendment why my honorable friend and the member which now has quite a large amount of support. That we have another look at. [indiscernible] not had a chance to read the final version and it will be tabled with the [indiscernible] of course of the second reading of the debate. But im aware of the intention of the amendments. And i completely understand what my honorables friends are trying to achieve. We cannot continue to delay taking a decision i saw come back to that point later in my speech. I will of course listen to the debate that follows during [indiscernible] open,ll is deliberately as to the purpose of the extension. It provides a framework for reporting and debate. And it is supported as i pointed out by honorable and right honorable members who have already voted for a deal and would vote for one again. And i would say it is very important that we focus on the principal purpose which is to prevent a no deal brexit, and to keep the coalition that shares that view together. But i will have more to say about that when we come to the end of the i will of course give way to the right honorable. Thank you ray much. Just the right honorable jim and to leave believed that a matter of such importance irrespective of speed at which all this is being done, should really be dealt with ultimately in the context of a general election . There may well be a general election at some point. But this legislation in my view needs to be passed, needs to go through the other place, needs to receive royal assent, and it needs to be given [indiscernible] in other words we might in my opinion is secure the extension. Otherwise there is a risk that the election would result in us leaving without a deal, which as it may turn out at 7 00 tonight, is not what the house of commons wants. And we should respect the view of the house of commons. I will give way. Im grateful to them and giving way. If the bill does pass and is given royal assent, can you think of any other reason why the labour party would not accept a general election . I thing ive just explained the reason. It is mid made clear by the leader of the liver party at my honorable friend and the secretary and others. Because we must deal with first things first and presenting a no deal brexit is the essential notes the central most important question. [indiscernible] enter toto intervene, and election at this stage or this week undermines the and we cant support it. [indiscernible] im grateful to the gentleman for being one of the sponsors of the bill. Time is short. Many people want to speak. Can i applaud his call for respect on all sides. We need to calm down this whole debate. I voted for the deal twice. He voted against the deal three times. Because he thought it was not in the best interest of this country. So how does he think this procedure of delaying any agreement yet further is going to produce an offer from the e. U. That might actually tempt him into [indiscernible] because it is in the better interest of the ok then what has gone before. How can this possibly come about by this procedure . Theres a reason i voted against the deal three times. It is not really resulted in that which all agreement the legally binding treaty. It was to do with the nature of the political declaration and the absolute lack of clarity about whether then Prime Minister wanted to take the country. That is my view. Other memories have got different views. If i could bring this back other members have different views. Forgive me im not going to give way further. I have been reasonably generous. And i am conscious of the time. The evidence before us as to the cost once is of no deal, it is important we acknowledge that. As to the the consequences of no deal. It is the fundamental reason behind the bill. As we heard from my right honorable friend, and counts about earlier this year, it was reported that cabinet secretary and the National Security advisor had told the previous cabinet that no deal would make our country last safe. It international if the National Security advisor says that to the cabinet, we ought to pay attention. All of us have seen the governments own, can assessment that makes it clear that no deal would cause the greatest loss to the economy. We know that [indiscernible] the body that respect represents the british Manufacturing Industry have described no deal as an act of economic vandalism. Since we last debated the question of an extension, new information has come to light from the consequences of no deal. The government itself has admitted there would be damage to companies because they were prepared to compensate certain businesses and industry, the first time in mikes parents the government has advocated a policy of saying no that in my experience the government has advocated a policy of saying no, we will . My damage. An operation Yellow Hammer the report published in the semi times sunday times talked about that potential for andests significant delays other reports. Potential impact on medicines, decreased supply of foods and prices, petrol refineries huge uncertainty for businesses serious damages to farmers and in some ways, given the progress that will Northern Ireland made in the last 20 years, most wearing of all, expressing the view that the current open border between the Northern Ireland republic could be unsustainable because of economic, legal, and entire security risks. I will give way to my honorable. And of course some in the bill today. You made a point about security we repeatedly sat at the Home Affairs Committee from Senior Police officers and Security Officials about the devastating impact of a no deal brexit. Keep hearing from the government about bilateral security treaties pair they not in place. Do not have those bilateral we do not have those in place to keep our borders safe from terrorist and pedophiles and others who would exploit National Security. Of the manyt is one Unanswered Questions about what happens on the other side. I will come back a little later on my briefing. Thing,i just clarify one members of this party have made comments in the media. Here i think said this earlier. This bill stops no deal. This bill does not stop no deal. Can we be clear. It prolongs the day before we leave. And the likelihood as not unless something dramatically changes we will be at exactly this point a few weeks before the new headline the new deadline. The only way to stop no deal is to revoke article 50. That is really what members of this side of the house want to happened that they should be honest with the british government. I should say to the honorable gentleman that if someone says you can jump off a cliff with all of the damaging consequences in a couple weeks time or we could put it off for three month, which would you like . I think the sensible course of action to take, given the damage that it would do to the country, is to put it off. I said we need ultimately to find a new way forward. Ive my own views as of other members have of how that should be done. Thats not the purpose of this bill today. Although it would [indiscernible] what provide for a framework in which the government can then decide what is going to do. Thank you honorable gentleman. Through makes independent respected bodies including the kings fund had written and rent a letter to mps setting out in stark terms that would basic nick and damage to health and Care Services from a no deal and were partly to people who depend on them,. Agree with the honorable lady and i would say and other memories will have lots of other experience, of the potential consequences, these are not risks that i think we should take with our economy our businesses our jobs are livelihoods and our health. I hope they remind everyone in the house today, that all the focus on process and motion and procedure, this is about the [indiscernible] that the unknow jailbreak that would have on the lives of the people represent. I will of course give way that the no deal brexit would have on the lives of the people we represent. I will of course give away. Standards a political imperative to get this done. Move on get it done. The practical imperative is that no deal does allow it to move on. It resolves nothing. It leads to many of the applications he talked about. [indiscernible] october, november is to seek a [indiscernible] agreement. Now moved. The gentleman is absolutely right. And a lot of this debate we have not discussed anything like it what happens on the other side of the 31st of october if the Prime Minister is able to get his way. And i succumb to that point in a moment. I will give way. I shall come to that point in a moment. The select committee. What is doing today is trying to prolong no damage. As far as the january date. In his announcement the current deal we have will damage the economy. But the best and we have to get our heads around it the best way to stop damage is to revoke article 50. An amendment to that end in the schedule needs one signature. That is the Prime Minister. His name is over that time. [indiscernible] i disagree respectfully with the honorable gentleman. I think just as no deal is unacceptable, revocation [indiscernible] is not except of all either. Previously in the house, my view about how we should resolve this. Other memos have different views. That is not the issue. I will give other members have different views. I have i will give way. Getting way. If i may, particular the grateful to the right honorable gentleman for the ways in which he has chairing his Brexit Select Committee and taking this vital evidence of isnt that really the point of this bill . That this is precisely the sort of work we should be done or questions should be laid in and ask. Be making sure that we are ready for any no deal yet what we are seeing is that they closed down next week when in fact we should be setting asking the questions and his committee and others should be able to do that. Absolutely right. One of the consequences for committees that are committee cannot meet or speak to the government. Organize. That is what we are. Does the honorable john but agree with me that it surprising there were are those who appeared at know more about making cars than those who make cars, more about making planes and those who make planes, and more about engineering than the engineers. The simple truth is the overwhelming and must take a bold voice of the world of work industry and all the other work industry organizations and trade unions is that a no jailbreak that would have catastrophic consequences a note deal brexit what have catastrophic consequences making our poor country in every sense of the word with tens of thousands losing their job. [here here] you make a powerful point. Those industries and sectors and we have met them and heard their evidence are troubled. That the message that comes from their expertise and knowledge, they are after all creating wealth in the country. It is not be heard by government that says we are prepared to leave with a no deal on the 31st of october. My honorable friend is in the room next door to me. That i am prepared to. Ive received this morning a letter from the northeast England Chamber of commerce. For the last three years we have been playing and consistent. Preserving the trading conditions and relationship we enjoy with a you a to be the primary objective of any brexit outcome hadley the governments willingness to embrace no deal as an acceptable and to the brexit negotiations flies in the face of this. It is at to say disastrous outcome for the northeast of england. This bill is a necessity. I think they do. Sense concluded a discussion and reflection of the economic and other consequences of no deal, i want now to turn to what the bill actually does. To stop this happening by seeking the extension in certain specific circumstances. It is very important to understand that the bill allows the Prime Minister the opportunity to reach a new agreement with the European Union at the European Council, and to seek parliaments consent to any such agreement. That is condition one. It also allows the government to bring a motion to the house of commons to seek our consent to living without a deal for example if discussions at the European Council prove unsuccessful. Now i think the government would find it difficult to get such a motion to the house of commons. But the bill allows it and allow them to seek to do that. Because one specifically provides for both of those eventualities. And if either of those conditions is met, then there can be no further extension. If however, neither of these conditions have been met, by the 19th of october, chosen the day deliberately, it is the day conclusion of the European Council. The Prime Minister must ask the eu for a further extension until the 31st of january 2020 in the form of a letter set out in the schedule to the field. Clause three deals with what happens next. If the European Council exceeds to that request, the Prime Minister must agree to it. Proposes anil extension to a different date, the Prime Minister must agree to that as well, unless the house of commons decides not to pass a motion agreeing to it. That is what subsection three does. Thats been wrongly claimed the eu could propose an in theon of any length Prime Minister would be required to accept it. Not so. Circumstances, the house could decide. Furthermore, if a deal is reached after the Prime Minister has asked for an extension, that would override any extension. Can,so allows him, if he to reach a deal after the European Council concludes on the 18th of october. Bill givesrds, the the Prime Minister the flexibility that he wants and needs to get a deal if he can. What it does not render further negotiation pointless. It seems to me what does is the Prime Ministers refusal to put a proposal to the eu. If this bill passes, a very odd state of affairs, of course i will give way. Clause 32 is very clear. The time of two days begins with the end of the European Councils decision is made. Clearly duringry proceedings on the change of date after the two previous occasions that the government accepted an extension that we were merely implementing a decision that was already made and binding in European Community law. What his proposal depends upon is the European Union making a onlytional offer that is comes into force if they choose to make it conditional on subsequent to cripple by the house of commons. He has no way of finding the European Unions procedures by a piece of domestic legislation. The purpose to that is if the bill is passed, it is in the knowledge